Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 671 | control, N = 341 | treatment, N = 331 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 67 | 50.77 ± 12.88 (25 - 74) | 50.17 ± 13.49 (25 - 74) | 51.38 ± 12.40 (31 - 72) | 0.705 |
gender | 67 | 0.856 | |||
f | 46 (69%) | 23 (68%) | 23 (70%) | ||
m | 21 (31%) | 11 (32%) | 10 (30%) | ||
occupation | 67 | 0.922 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.5%) | 1 (2.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 6 (9.0%) | 4 (12%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
other | 2 (3.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
part_time | 11 (16%) | 5 (15%) | 6 (18%) | ||
retired | 15 (22%) | 7 (21%) | 8 (24%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
student | 1 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
unemploy | 21 (31%) | 12 (35%) | 9 (27%) | ||
marital | 67 | >0.999 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
divore | 7 (10%) | 4 (12%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
married | 14 (21%) | 7 (21%) | 7 (21%) | ||
none | 39 (58%) | 20 (59%) | 19 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.5%) | 1 (2.9%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
edu | 67 | 0.997 | |||
bachelor | 19 (28%) | 9 (26%) | 10 (30%) | ||
diploma | 12 (18%) | 7 (21%) | 5 (15%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
primary | 5 (7.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 14 (21%) | 7 (21%) | 7 (21%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
fam_income | 67 | 0.822 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (6.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (6.0%) | 2 (5.9%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (7.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
18001_20000 | 3 (4.5%) | 3 (8.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 10 (15%) | 6 (18%) | 4 (12%) | ||
2001_4000 | 9 (13%) | 6 (18%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
4001_6000 | 9 (13%) | 4 (12%) | 5 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 6 (9.0%) | 2 (5.9%) | 4 (12%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (13%) | 4 (12%) | 5 (15%) | ||
medication | 67 | 57 (85%) | 30 (88%) | 27 (82%) | 0.512 |
onset_duration | 67 | 15.03 ± 11.66 (0 - 56) | 16.60 ± 12.84 (1 - 56) | 13.41 ± 10.23 (0 - 35) | 0.266 |
onset_age | 67 | 35.74 ± 14.16 (14 - 64) | 33.57 ± 12.91 (14 - 58) | 37.97 ± 15.21 (15 - 64) | 0.206 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 671 | control, N = 341 | treatment, N = 331 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 67 | 3.16 ± 1.25 (1 - 5) | 3.18 ± 1.29 (1 - 5) | 3.15 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.936 |
recovery_stage_b | 67 | 17.91 ± 2.65 (9 - 23) | 17.76 ± 2.69 (9 - 23) | 18.06 ± 2.65 (13 - 23) | 0.651 |
ras_confidence | 67 | 30.25 ± 4.80 (19 - 43) | 29.56 ± 4.19 (19 - 40) | 30.97 ± 5.33 (20 - 43) | 0.232 |
ras_willingness | 67 | 12.03 ± 1.96 (7 - 15) | 11.85 ± 1.84 (9 - 15) | 12.21 ± 2.09 (7 - 15) | 0.458 |
ras_goal | 67 | 17.48 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 17.41 ± 2.99 (12 - 24) | 17.55 ± 3.05 (12 - 24) | 0.857 |
ras_reliance | 67 | 13.19 ± 2.87 (8 - 20) | 12.88 ± 2.64 (8 - 18) | 13.52 ± 3.09 (8 - 20) | 0.370 |
ras_domination | 67 | 10.00 ± 2.21 (3 - 15) | 10.44 ± 1.99 (6 - 15) | 9.55 ± 2.36 (3 - 14) | 0.097 |
symptom | 67 | 30.48 ± 9.93 (14 - 56) | 31.26 ± 9.78 (14 - 52) | 29.67 ± 10.16 (15 - 56) | 0.514 |
slof_work | 67 | 22.33 ± 4.80 (10 - 30) | 22.32 ± 4.35 (15 - 30) | 22.33 ± 5.30 (10 - 30) | 0.993 |
slof_relationship | 67 | 25.54 ± 6.01 (11 - 35) | 25.09 ± 6.14 (13 - 35) | 26.00 ± 5.92 (11 - 35) | 0.539 |
satisfaction | 67 | 20.49 ± 6.87 (5 - 32) | 18.97 ± 6.50 (5 - 29) | 22.06 ± 6.98 (5 - 32) | 0.065 |
mhc_emotional | 67 | 11.16 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.74 ± 3.35 (3 - 17) | 11.61 ± 4.26 (4 - 18) | 0.355 |
mhc_social | 67 | 14.69 ± 5.16 (6 - 26) | 14.94 ± 5.01 (7 - 26) | 14.42 ± 5.37 (6 - 26) | 0.685 |
mhc_psychological | 67 | 22.01 ± 5.92 (6 - 36) | 21.53 ± 5.33 (10 - 33) | 22.52 ± 6.52 (6 - 36) | 0.500 |
resilisnce | 67 | 16.58 ± 4.62 (6 - 27) | 16.21 ± 4.42 (6 - 24) | 16.97 ± 4.86 (7 - 27) | 0.503 |
social_provision | 67 | 13.67 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.59 (8 - 20) | 14.12 ± 3.34 (5 - 20) | 0.229 |
els_value_living | 67 | 17.25 ± 2.99 (5 - 25) | 16.62 ± 2.40 (12 - 22) | 17.91 ± 3.40 (5 - 25) | 0.077 |
els_life_fulfill | 67 | 12.79 ± 3.30 (4 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.04 (5 - 17) | 13.82 ± 3.28 (4 - 20) | 0.011 |
els | 67 | 30.04 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 28.41 ± 4.45 (20 - 36) | 31.73 ± 6.25 (9 - 45) | 0.015 |
social_connect | 67 | 27.22 ± 9.24 (8 - 48) | 28.09 ± 8.11 (8 - 45) | 26.33 ± 10.33 (8 - 48) | 0.441 |
shs_agency | 67 | 14.34 ± 4.89 (3 - 24) | 13.68 ± 4.54 (3 - 21) | 15.03 ± 5.21 (3 - 24) | 0.260 |
shs_pathway | 67 | 16.57 ± 3.96 (4 - 24) | 16.09 ± 3.82 (8 - 24) | 17.06 ± 4.11 (4 - 23) | 0.319 |
shs | 67 | 30.91 ± 8.36 (7 - 47) | 29.76 ± 7.99 (13 - 45) | 32.09 ± 8.70 (7 - 47) | 0.258 |
esteem | 67 | 12.64 ± 1.46 (10 - 18) | 12.76 ± 1.50 (10 - 18) | 12.52 ± 1.44 (10 - 16) | 0.490 |
mlq_search | 67 | 14.88 ± 3.43 (3 - 21) | 14.85 ± 3.20 (6 - 21) | 14.91 ± 3.69 (3 - 21) | 0.947 |
mlq_presence | 67 | 13.46 ± 4.16 (3 - 21) | 13.38 ± 3.53 (5 - 20) | 13.55 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 0.874 |
mlq | 67 | 28.34 ± 6.79 (6 - 42) | 28.24 ± 6.03 (12 - 40) | 28.45 ± 7.60 (6 - 42) | 0.896 |
empower | 67 | 19.49 ± 4.17 (6 - 28) | 19.03 ± 3.84 (11 - 24) | 19.97 ± 4.49 (6 - 28) | 0.360 |
ismi_resistance | 67 | 14.58 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 14.26 ± 2.29 (11 - 19) | 14.91 ± 3.17 (5 - 20) | 0.342 |
ismi_discrimation | 67 | 11.39 ± 3.28 (5 - 19) | 12.38 ± 2.81 (5 - 18) | 10.36 ± 3.46 (5 - 19) | 0.011 |
sss_affective | 67 | 10.09 ± 3.88 (3 - 18) | 10.74 ± 3.41 (3 - 18) | 9.42 ± 4.27 (3 - 18) | 0.169 |
sss_behavior | 67 | 9.81 ± 4.01 (3 - 18) | 10.65 ± 3.91 (3 - 18) | 8.94 ± 3.99 (3 - 18) | 0.081 |
sss_cognitive | 67 | 8.34 ± 4.06 (3 - 18) | 8.79 ± 4.24 (3 - 18) | 7.88 ± 3.88 (3 - 18) | 0.360 |
sss | 67 | 28.24 ± 11.09 (9 - 54) | 30.18 ± 10.35 (9 - 54) | 26.24 ± 11.62 (9 - 54) | 0.148 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.18 | 0.211 | 2.76, 3.59 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.025 | 0.301 | -0.615, 0.566 | 0.934 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.309 | 0.330 | -0.338, 0.956 | 0.354 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.064 | 0.457 | -0.832, 0.960 | 0.889 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.8 | 0.468 | 16.8, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.296 | 0.667 | -1.01, 1.60 | 0.658 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.106 | 0.664 | -1.41, 1.20 | 0.874 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.547 | 0.918 | -1.25, 2.35 | 0.554 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.866 | 27.9, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.41 | 1.234 | -1.01, 3.83 | 0.256 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.460 | 0.946 | -1.39, 2.31 | 0.630 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.023 | 1.305 | -2.53, 2.58 | 0.986 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.342 | 11.2, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.359 | 0.487 | -0.596, 1.31 | 0.464 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.835 | 0.343 | -1.51, -0.163 | 0.020 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.657 | 0.473 | -0.270, 1.58 | 0.173 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.4 | 0.548 | 16.3, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.134 | 0.780 | -1.40, 1.66 | 0.864 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.915 | 0.602 | -2.09, 0.264 | 0.136 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.49 | 0.829 | -0.135, 3.12 | 0.080 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.482 | 11.9, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.633 | 0.687 | -0.714, 1.98 | 0.360 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.269 | 0.445 | -0.602, 1.14 | 0.549 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.696 | 0.612 | -0.504, 1.90 | 0.263 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.377 | 9.70, 11.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.896 | 0.538 | -1.95, 0.159 | 0.100 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.374 | 0.516 | -1.39, 0.638 | 0.473 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.16 | 0.713 | -0.240, 2.55 | 0.112 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.3 | 1.705 | 27.9, 34.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.60 | 2.430 | -6.36, 3.16 | 0.513 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.518 | 1.241 | -2.95, 1.91 | 0.679 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.231 | 1.707 | -3.58, 3.12 | 0.893 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.836 | 20.7, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.010 | 1.191 | -2.33, 2.34 | 0.993 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.425 | 0.710 | -1.82, 0.966 | 0.553 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.898 | 0.977 | -2.81, 1.02 | 0.364 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.1 | 1.028 | 23.1, 27.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.912 | 1.464 | -1.96, 3.78 | 0.535 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.45 | 0.986 | -3.39, 0.481 | 0.150 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.790 | 1.359 | -1.87, 3.45 | 0.565 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 1.193 | 16.6, 21.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.09 | 1.700 | -0.243, 6.42 | 0.073 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.741 | 1.358 | -1.92, 3.40 | 0.588 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.58 | 1.873 | -5.25, 2.10 | 0.405 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.650 | 9.46, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.871 | 0.926 | -0.944, 2.69 | 0.350 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.678 | 0.615 | -0.527, 1.88 | 0.278 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.27 | 0.846 | -2.93, 0.384 | 0.141 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.919 | 13.1, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.517 | 1.310 | -3.08, 2.05 | 0.694 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.20 | 1.025 | -0.808, 3.21 | 0.249 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.43 | 1.414 | -4.20, 1.34 | 0.318 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 1.069 | 19.4, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.986 | 1.524 | -2.00, 3.97 | 0.520 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.715 | 1.146 | -1.53, 2.96 | 0.537 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.93 | 1.580 | -5.02, 1.17 | 0.230 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.759 | 14.7, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.764 | 1.082 | -1.36, 2.88 | 0.482 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.267 | 0.767 | -1.24, 1.77 | 0.730 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.393 | 1.056 | -1.68, 2.46 | 0.712 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.501 | 12.3, 14.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.886 | 0.714 | -0.513, 2.28 | 0.218 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.449 | 0.552 | -1.53, 0.633 | 0.421 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.248 | 0.761 | -1.24, 1.74 | 0.746 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.505 | 15.6, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.29 | 0.719 | -0.118, 2.70 | 0.076 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.551 | 0.528 | -0.484, 1.59 | 0.303 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.474 | 0.728 | -1.90, 0.953 | 0.519 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.526 | 10.8, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 0.750 | 0.555, 3.49 | 0.009 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.03 | 0.555 | -0.059, 2.12 | 0.072 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.827 | 0.765 | -2.33, 0.673 | 0.287 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.088 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.4 | 0.920 | 26.6, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.32 | 1.311 | 0.745, 5.89 | 0.014 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.50 | 0.900 | -0.259, 3.27 | 0.103 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.21 | 1.239 | -3.64, 1.22 | 0.335 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.078 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 1.557 | 25.0, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.75 | 2.219 | -6.10, 2.59 | 0.432 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.203 | 1.283 | -2.31, 2.72 | 0.875 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.037 | 1.765 | -3.50, 3.42 | 0.984 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.835 | 12.0, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.35 | 1.190 | -0.978, 3.69 | 0.259 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.314 | 0.830 | -1.31, 1.94 | 0.707 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.318 | 1.144 | -1.92, 2.56 | 0.783 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.670 | 14.8, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.972 | 0.954 | -0.898, 2.84 | 0.312 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.407 | 0.585 | -0.740, 1.55 | 0.491 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.567 | 0.806 | -2.15, 1.01 | 0.486 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.416 | 27.0, 32.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.33 | 2.018 | -1.63, 6.28 | 0.253 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.655 | 1.250 | -1.79, 3.10 | 0.603 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.162 | 1.720 | -3.53, 3.21 | 0.925 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.237 | 12.3, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.250 | 0.337 | -0.911, 0.412 | 0.461 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.405 | 0.404 | -0.386, 1.20 | 0.324 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.180 | 0.561 | -1.28, 0.920 | 0.751 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.592 | 13.7, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.056 | 0.843 | -1.60, 1.71 | 0.947 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.149 | 0.771 | -1.66, 1.36 | 0.848 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.002 | 1.065 | -2.09, 2.09 | 0.999 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.702 | 12.0, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.163 | 1.001 | -1.80, 2.12 | 0.871 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.016 | 0.856 | -1.69, 1.66 | 0.985 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.094 | 1.180 | -2.22, 2.41 | 0.937 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.179 | 25.9, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.219 | 1.680 | -3.07, 3.51 | 0.897 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.179 | 1.466 | -3.05, 2.69 | 0.903 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.092 | 2.023 | -3.87, 4.06 | 0.964 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.688 | 17.7, 20.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.940 | 0.980 | -0.980, 2.86 | 0.340 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.297 | 0.679 | -1.03, 1.63 | 0.664 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.02 | 0.935 | -2.86, 0.810 | 0.281 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.444 | 13.4, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.644 | 0.632 | -0.595, 1.88 | 0.311 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.550 | 0.643 | -0.710, 1.81 | 0.397 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.728 | 0.889 | -2.47, 1.01 | 0.417 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.548 | 11.3, 13.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.02 | 0.781 | -3.55, -0.488 | 0.012 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.933 | 0.566 | -2.04, 0.176 | 0.108 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.49 | 0.779 | -0.033, 3.02 | 0.063 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.066 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.640 | 9.48, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.31 | 0.911 | -3.10, 0.475 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.042 | 0.571 | -1.08, 1.16 | 0.942 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.882 | 0.786 | -2.42, 0.660 | 0.269 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.051 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.656 | 9.36, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.71 | 0.935 | -3.54, 0.126 | 0.072 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.035 | 0.650 | -1.31, 1.24 | 0.957 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.644 | 0.896 | -2.40, 1.11 | 0.477 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.064 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.79 | 0.683 | 7.45, 10.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.915 | 0.974 | -2.82, 0.993 | 0.350 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.947 | 0.586 | -0.202, 2.09 | 0.115 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.72 | 0.807 | -3.30, -0.137 | 0.040 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.044 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 30.2 | 1.830 | 26.6, 33.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.93 | 2.607 | -9.04, 1.18 | 0.136 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.05 | 1.500 | -1.89, 3.99 | 0.490 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.33 | 2.065 | -7.37, 0.719 | 0.116 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.060 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.18 (95% CI [2.76, 3.59], t(95) = 15.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.57], t(95) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.96], t(95) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.96], t(95) = 0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.76 (95% CI [16.85, 18.68], t(95) = 37.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.60], t(95) = 0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.20], t(95) = -0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.35], t(95) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.87])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.86, 31.26], t(95) = 34.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-1.01, 3.83], t(95) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.39, 2.31], t(95) = 0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-2.53, 2.58], t(95) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 4.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.85 (95% CI [11.18, 12.52], t(95) = 34.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.31], t(95) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.51, -0.16], t(95) = -2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.58], t(95) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.41 (95% CI [16.34, 18.49], t(95) = 31.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.66], t(95) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-2.09, 0.26], t(95) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.13, 3.12], t(95) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.88 (95% CI [11.94, 13.83], t(95) = 26.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.98], t(95) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.14], t(95) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.90], t(95) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.44 (95% CI [9.70, 11.18], t(95) = 27.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.16], t(95) = -1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.64], t(95) = -0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.55], t(95) = 1.62, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.26 (95% CI [27.92, 34.61], t(95) = 18.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-6.36, 3.16], t(95) = -0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.95, 1.91], t(95) = -0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-3.58, 3.12], t(95) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.32 (95% CI [20.68, 23.96], t(95) = 26.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.80e-03, 95% CI [-2.33, 2.34], t(95) = 8.23e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 2.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.97], t(95) = -0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.81, 1.02], t(95) = -0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.09 (95% CI [23.07, 27.10], t(95) = 24.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.78], t(95) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.39, 0.48], t(95) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.87, 3.45], t(95) = 0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [16.63, 21.31], t(95) = 15.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 6.42], t(95) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.92])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.92, 3.40], t(95) = 0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.58, 95% CI [-5.25, 2.10], t(95) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.46, 12.01], t(95) = 16.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.69], t(95) = 0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.88], t(95) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.93, 0.38], t(95) = -1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.94 (95% CI [13.14, 16.74], t(95) = 16.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-3.08, 2.05], t(95) = -0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-0.81, 3.21], t(95) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-4.20, 1.34], t(95) = -1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.53 (95% CI [19.43, 23.63], t(95) = 20.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.97], t(95) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.96], t(95) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.93, 95% CI [-5.02, 1.17], t(95) = -1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.21 (95% CI [14.72, 17.69], t(95) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.88], t(95) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.77], t(95) = 0.35, p = 0.728; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.46], t(95) = 0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.25, 14.22], t(95) = 26.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.28], t(95) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.63], t(95) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.74], t(95) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.62 (95% CI [15.63, 17.61], t(95) = 32.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.70], t(95) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.59], t(95) = 1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.90, 0.95], t(95) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [10.76, 12.83], t(95) = 22.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [0.55, 3.49], t(95) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.18, 1.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.12], t(95) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.67])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.67], t(95) = -1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.41 (95% CI [26.61, 30.22], t(95) = 30.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.32, 95% CI [0.75, 5.89], t(95) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.13, 1.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-0.26, 3.27], t(95) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-3.64, 1.22], t(95) = -0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.09 (95% CI [25.04, 31.14], t(95) = 18.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.75, 95% CI [-6.10, 2.59], t(95) = -0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-2.31, 2.72], t(95) = 0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-3.50, 3.42], t(95) = -0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = -3.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.68 (95% CI [12.04, 15.31], t(95) = 16.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.69], t(95) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.94], t(95) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.92, 2.56], t(95) = 0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.09 (95% CI [14.78, 17.40], t(95) = 24.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.84], t(95) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.55], t(95) = 0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.01], t(95) = -0.70, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [26.99, 32.54], t(95) = 21.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.33, 95% CI [-1.63, 6.28], t(95) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.79, 3.10], t(95) = 0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-3.53, 3.21], t(95) = -0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.12) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.76 (95% CI [12.30, 13.23], t(95) = 53.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.41], t(95) = -0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.20], t(95) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.87])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.92], t(95) = -0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.79e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.85 (95% CI [13.69, 16.01], t(95) = 25.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.71], t(95) = 0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.36], t(95) = -0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.79e-03, 95% CI [-2.09, 2.09], t(95) = -1.68e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -5.31e-04, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.20e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.01, 14.76], t(95) = 19.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.80, 2.12], t(95) = 0.16, p = 0.871; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.66], t(95) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -4.01e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.41], t(95) = 0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.15e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [25.92, 30.55], t(95) = 23.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.51], t(95) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-3.05, 2.69], t(95) = -0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-3.87, 4.06], t(95) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.77e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.03 (95% CI [17.68, 20.38], t(95) = 27.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.86], t(95) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.63], t(95) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, 95% CI [-2.86, 0.81], t(95) = -1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.26 (95% CI [13.39, 15.13], t(95) = 32.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.88], t(95) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.81], t(95) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.70])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.01], t(95) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.38 (95% CI [11.31, 13.46], t(95) = 22.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.02, 95% CI [-3.55, -0.49], t(95) = -2.58, p = 0.010; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.09, -0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.04, 0.18], t(95) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.02], t(95) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-9.98e-03, 0.93])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.48, 11.99], t(95) = 16.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.10, 0.48], t(95) = -1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.16], t(95) = 0.07, p = 0.942; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.66], t(95) = -1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.36, 11.93], t(95) = 16.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-3.54, 0.13], t(95) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.24], t(95) = -0.05, p = 0.957; Std. beta = -8.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.40, 1.11], t(95) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.79 (95% CI [7.45, 10.13], t(95) = 12.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.99], t(95) = -0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.09], t(95) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-3.30, -0.14], t(95) = -2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.18 (95% CI [26.59, 33.76], t(95) = 16.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.93, 95% CI [-9.04, 1.18], t(95) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.99], t(95) = 0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.33, 95% CI [-7.37, 0.72], t(95) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 330.052 | 337.898 | -162.026 | 324.052 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 333.742 | 349.433 | -160.871 | 321.742 | 2.311 | 3 | 0.511 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 484.912 | 492.757 | -239.456 | 478.912 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 489.783 | 505.474 | -238.892 | 477.783 | 1.128 | 3 | 0.770 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 595.284 | 603.129 | -294.642 | 589.284 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 599.240 | 614.931 | -293.620 | 587.240 | 2.044 | 3 | 0.563 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 407.143 | 414.989 | -200.572 | 401.143 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 406.339 | 422.030 | -197.170 | 394.339 | 6.804 | 3 | 0.078 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 504.940 | 512.785 | -249.470 | 498.940 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 507.057 | 522.748 | -247.529 | 495.057 | 3.883 | 3 | 0.274 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 471.609 | 479.454 | -232.804 | 465.609 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 470.426 | 486.116 | -229.213 | 458.426 | 7.183 | 3 | 0.066 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 442.858 | 450.703 | -218.429 | 436.858 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 444.494 | 460.185 | -216.247 | 432.494 | 4.364 | 3 | 0.225 |
symptom | null | 3 | 705.296 | 713.141 | -349.648 | 699.296 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 710.172 | 725.863 | -349.086 | 698.172 | 1.124 | 3 | 0.771 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 574.473 | 582.318 | -284.237 | 568.473 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 576.241 | 591.932 | -282.121 | 564.241 | 4.232 | 3 | 0.237 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 622.913 | 630.759 | -308.457 | 616.913 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 625.754 | 641.445 | -306.877 | 613.754 | 3.159 | 3 | 0.368 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 663.981 | 671.826 | -328.990 | 657.981 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 666.519 | 682.210 | -327.260 | 654.519 | 3.462 | 3 | 0.326 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 528.938 | 536.783 | -261.469 | 522.938 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 532.256 | 547.947 | -260.128 | 520.256 | 2.681 | 3 | 0.443 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 608.562 | 616.407 | -301.281 | 602.562 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 612.558 | 628.249 | -300.279 | 600.558 | 2.004 | 3 | 0.572 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 636.464 | 644.310 | -315.232 | 630.464 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 640.688 | 656.379 | -314.344 | 628.688 | 1.776 | 3 | 0.620 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 563.515 | 571.361 | -278.758 | 557.515 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 567.786 | 583.476 | -277.893 | 555.786 | 1.730 | 3 | 0.630 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 485.988 | 493.833 | -239.994 | 479.988 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 489.195 | 504.885 | -238.597 | 477.195 | 2.794 | 3 | 0.425 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 485.565 | 493.411 | -239.783 | 479.565 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 487.499 | 503.190 | -237.749 | 475.499 | 4.066 | 3 | 0.254 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 500.238 | 508.084 | -247.119 | 494.238 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 496.434 | 512.125 | -242.217 | 484.434 | 9.804 | 3 | 0.020 |
els | null | 3 | 607.158 | 615.003 | -300.579 | 601.158 | |||
els | random | 6 | 604.630 | 620.320 | -296.315 | 592.630 | 8.528 | 3 | 0.036 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 694.634 | 702.479 | -344.317 | 688.634 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 699.906 | 715.597 | -343.953 | 687.906 | 0.727 | 3 | 0.867 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 582.482 | 590.328 | -288.241 | 576.482 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 586.015 | 601.706 | -287.008 | 574.015 | 2.467 | 3 | 0.481 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 528.689 | 536.534 | -261.344 | 522.689 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 533.295 | 548.986 | -260.647 | 521.295 | 1.394 | 3 | 0.707 |
shs | null | 3 | 681.035 | 688.881 | -337.518 | 675.035 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 685.169 | 700.860 | -336.584 | 673.169 | 1.866 | 3 | 0.601 |
esteem | null | 3 | 355.801 | 363.647 | -174.901 | 349.801 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 359.320 | 375.011 | -173.660 | 347.320 | 2.481 | 3 | 0.479 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 526.748 | 534.594 | -260.374 | 520.748 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 532.658 | 548.349 | -260.329 | 520.658 | 0.090 | 3 | 0.993 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 557.497 | 565.342 | -275.748 | 551.497 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 563.442 | 579.133 | -275.721 | 551.442 | 0.055 | 3 | 0.997 |
mlq | null | 3 | 663.349 | 671.195 | -328.675 | 657.349 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 669.303 | 684.994 | -328.652 | 657.303 | 0.046 | 3 | 0.997 |
empower | null | 3 | 542.394 | 550.239 | -268.197 | 536.394 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 546.385 | 562.076 | -267.193 | 534.385 | 2.008 | 3 | 0.571 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 475.561 | 483.406 | -234.780 | 469.561 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 480.145 | 495.835 | -234.072 | 468.145 | 1.416 | 3 | 0.702 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 505.793 | 513.638 | -249.897 | 499.793 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 503.345 | 519.036 | -245.673 | 491.345 | 8.448 | 3 | 0.038 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 524.968 | 532.814 | -259.484 | 518.968 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 525.377 | 541.067 | -256.688 | 513.377 | 5.592 | 3 | 0.133 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 536.898 | 544.743 | -265.449 | 530.898 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 537.238 | 552.929 | -262.619 | 525.238 | 5.659 | 3 | 0.129 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 536.636 | 544.481 | -265.318 | 530.636 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 536.133 | 551.824 | -262.067 | 524.133 | 6.502 | 3 | 0.090 |
sss | null | 3 | 732.913 | 740.759 | -363.457 | 726.913 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 732.193 | 747.883 | -360.096 | 720.193 | 6.721 | 3 | 0.081 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 34 | 3.18 ± 1.23 | 33 | 3.15 ± 1.23 | 0.934 | 0.024 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 16 | 3.49 ± 1.22 | -0.298 | 18 | 3.52 ± 1.22 | -0.360 | 0.926 | -0.038 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 34 | 17.76 ± 2.73 | 33 | 18.06 ± 2.73 | 0.658 | -0.146 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 16 | 17.66 ± 2.61 | 0.052 | 18 | 18.50 ± 2.63 | -0.217 | 0.351 | -0.415 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 34 | 29.56 ± 5.05 | 33 | 30.97 ± 5.05 | 0.256 | -0.505 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 16 | 30.02 ± 4.38 | -0.165 | 18 | 31.45 ± 4.48 | -0.173 | 0.348 | -0.514 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 34 | 11.85 ± 1.99 | 33 | 12.21 ± 1.99 | 0.464 | -0.358 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 16 | 11.02 ± 1.68 | 0.831 | 18 | 12.03 ± 1.73 | 0.177 | 0.086 | -1.011 |
ras_goal | 1st | 34 | 17.41 ± 3.19 | 33 | 17.55 ± 3.19 | 0.864 | -0.075 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 16 | 16.50 ± 2.78 | 0.515 | 18 | 18.12 ± 2.84 | -0.324 | 0.095 | -0.915 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 34 | 12.88 ± 2.81 | 33 | 13.52 ± 2.81 | 0.360 | -0.489 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 16 | 13.15 ± 2.31 | -0.208 | 18 | 14.48 ± 2.39 | -0.745 | 0.103 | -1.026 |
ras_domination | 1st | 34 | 10.44 ± 2.20 | 33 | 9.55 ± 2.20 | 0.100 | 0.571 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 16 | 10.07 ± 2.08 | 0.238 | 18 | 10.33 ± 2.09 | -0.500 | 0.715 | -0.167 |
symptom | 1st | 34 | 31.26 ± 9.94 | 33 | 29.67 ± 9.94 | 0.513 | 0.447 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 16 | 30.75 ± 7.70 | 0.145 | 18 | 28.92 ± 8.06 | 0.210 | 0.500 | 0.512 |
slof_work | 1st | 34 | 22.32 ± 4.88 | 33 | 22.33 ± 4.88 | 0.993 | -0.005 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 16 | 21.90 ± 3.92 | 0.207 | 18 | 21.01 ± 4.07 | 0.644 | 0.518 | 0.432 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 34 | 25.09 ± 5.99 | 33 | 26.00 ± 5.99 | 0.535 | -0.317 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 16 | 23.64 ± 4.98 | 0.504 | 18 | 25.34 ± 5.14 | 0.230 | 0.330 | -0.591 |
satisfaction | 1st | 34 | 18.97 ± 6.96 | 33 | 22.06 ± 6.96 | 0.073 | -0.768 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 16 | 19.71 ± 6.12 | -0.184 | 18 | 21.23 ± 6.25 | 0.207 | 0.478 | -0.376 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 34 | 10.74 ± 3.79 | 33 | 11.61 ± 3.79 | 0.350 | -0.486 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 16 | 11.41 ± 3.14 | -0.378 | 18 | 11.01 ± 3.24 | 0.333 | 0.713 | 0.225 |
mhc_social | 1st | 34 | 14.94 ± 5.36 | 33 | 14.42 ± 5.36 | 0.694 | 0.171 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 16 | 16.14 ± 4.68 | -0.396 | 18 | 14.20 ± 4.78 | 0.076 | 0.234 | 0.642 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 34 | 21.53 ± 6.23 | 33 | 22.52 ± 6.23 | 0.520 | -0.292 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 16 | 22.24 ± 5.37 | -0.212 | 18 | 21.30 ± 5.50 | 0.359 | 0.616 | 0.278 |
resilisnce | 1st | 34 | 16.21 ± 4.43 | 33 | 16.97 ± 4.43 | 0.482 | -0.340 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 16 | 16.47 ± 3.74 | -0.119 | 18 | 17.63 ± 3.84 | -0.294 | 0.376 | -0.515 |
social_provision | 1st | 34 | 13.24 ± 2.92 | 33 | 14.12 ± 2.92 | 0.218 | -0.543 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 16 | 12.79 ± 2.54 | 0.276 | 18 | 13.92 ± 2.60 | 0.123 | 0.202 | -0.696 |
els_value_living | 1st | 34 | 16.62 ± 2.94 | 33 | 17.91 ± 2.94 | 0.076 | -0.832 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 16 | 17.17 ± 2.51 | -0.355 | 18 | 17.99 ± 2.58 | -0.050 | 0.352 | -0.527 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 34 | 11.79 ± 3.07 | 33 | 13.82 ± 3.07 | 0.009 | -1.240 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 16 | 12.82 ± 2.63 | -0.630 | 18 | 14.02 ± 2.70 | -0.124 | 0.193 | -0.733 |
els | 1st | 34 | 28.41 ± 5.37 | 33 | 31.73 ± 5.37 | 0.014 | -1.261 | ||
els | 2nd | 16 | 29.92 ± 4.49 | -0.572 | 18 | 32.02 ± 4.62 | -0.112 | 0.181 | -0.801 |
social_connect | 1st | 34 | 28.09 ± 9.08 | 33 | 26.33 ± 9.08 | 0.432 | 0.473 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 16 | 28.29 ± 7.24 | -0.055 | 18 | 26.50 ± 7.52 | -0.045 | 0.481 | 0.483 |
shs_agency | 1st | 34 | 13.68 ± 4.87 | 33 | 15.03 ± 4.87 | 0.259 | -0.557 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 16 | 13.99 ± 4.09 | -0.129 | 18 | 15.66 ± 4.21 | -0.260 | 0.244 | -0.688 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 34 | 16.09 ± 3.90 | 33 | 17.06 ± 3.90 | 0.312 | -0.572 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 16 | 16.50 ± 3.16 | -0.240 | 18 | 16.90 ± 3.28 | 0.094 | 0.715 | -0.238 |
shs | 1st | 34 | 29.76 ± 8.26 | 33 | 32.09 ± 8.26 | 0.253 | -0.641 | ||
shs | 2nd | 16 | 30.42 ± 6.70 | -0.181 | 18 | 32.58 ± 6.94 | -0.136 | 0.358 | -0.596 |
esteem | 1st | 34 | 12.76 ± 1.38 | 33 | 12.52 ± 1.38 | 0.461 | 0.191 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 16 | 13.17 ± 1.40 | -0.310 | 18 | 12.74 ± 1.40 | -0.172 | 0.373 | 0.328 |
mlq_search | 1st | 34 | 14.85 ± 3.45 | 33 | 14.91 ± 3.45 | 0.947 | -0.024 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 16 | 14.70 ± 3.19 | 0.064 | 18 | 14.76 ± 3.23 | 0.065 | 0.961 | -0.023 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 34 | 13.38 ± 4.09 | 33 | 13.55 ± 4.09 | 0.871 | -0.064 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 16 | 13.37 ± 3.69 | 0.006 | 18 | 13.62 ± 3.75 | -0.030 | 0.841 | -0.101 |
mlq | 1st | 34 | 28.24 ± 6.88 | 33 | 28.45 ± 6.88 | 0.897 | -0.050 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 16 | 28.06 ± 6.25 | 0.041 | 18 | 28.37 ± 6.34 | 0.020 | 0.886 | -0.071 |
empower | 1st | 34 | 19.03 ± 4.01 | 33 | 19.97 ± 4.01 | 0.340 | -0.474 | ||
empower | 2nd | 16 | 19.33 ± 3.36 | -0.149 | 18 | 19.24 ± 3.46 | 0.366 | 0.944 | 0.042 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 34 | 14.26 ± 2.59 | 33 | 14.91 ± 2.59 | 0.311 | -0.326 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 16 | 14.81 ± 2.50 | -0.278 | 18 | 14.73 ± 2.51 | 0.090 | 0.922 | 0.042 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 34 | 12.38 ± 3.20 | 33 | 10.36 ± 3.20 | 0.012 | 1.216 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 16 | 11.45 ± 2.72 | 0.562 | 18 | 10.93 ± 2.79 | -0.339 | 0.581 | 0.316 |
sss_affective | 1st | 34 | 10.74 ± 3.73 | 33 | 9.42 ± 3.73 | 0.155 | 0.790 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 16 | 10.78 ± 3.04 | -0.025 | 18 | 8.58 ± 3.14 | 0.506 | 0.041 | 1.321 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 34 | 10.65 ± 3.83 | 33 | 8.94 ± 3.83 | 0.072 | 0.897 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 16 | 10.61 ± 3.21 | 0.018 | 18 | 8.26 ± 3.31 | 0.357 | 0.038 | 1.236 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 34 | 8.79 ± 3.98 | 33 | 7.88 ± 3.98 | 0.350 | 0.539 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 16 | 9.74 ± 3.21 | -0.557 | 18 | 7.11 ± 3.33 | 0.454 | 0.021 | 1.550 |
sss | 1st | 34 | 30.18 ± 10.67 | 33 | 26.24 ± 10.67 | 0.136 | 0.907 | ||
sss | 2nd | 16 | 31.22 ± 8.49 | -0.241 | 18 | 23.96 ± 8.83 | 0.526 | 0.016 | 1.674 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(91.87) = -0.08, p = 0.934, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.57)
2st
t(96.01) = 0.09, p = 0.926, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.87)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(86.43) = 0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.62)
2st
t(95.71) = 0.94, p = 0.351, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.63)
ras_confidence
1st
t(76.19) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.05 to 3.87)
2st
t(96.99) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.59 to 4.45)
ras_willingness
1st
t(74.10) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.33)
2st
t(96.79) = 1.74, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.18)
ras_goal
1st
t(76.33) = 0.17, p = 0.864, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.69)
2st
t(96.98) = 1.69, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.29 to 3.54)
ras_reliance
1st
t(72.47) = 0.92, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.00)
2st
t(95.93) = 1.65, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.27 to 2.93)
ras_domination
1st
t(84.53) = -1.67, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.17)
2st
t(95.81) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.68)
symptom
1st
t(69.39) = -0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-6.44 to 3.25)
2st
t(90.59) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-7.20 to 3.54)
slof_work
1st
t(71.19) = 0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.37 to 2.39)
2st
t(94.49) = -0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.61 to 1.83)
slof_relationship
1st
t(73.22) = 0.62, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.83)
2st
t(96.43) = 0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.75 to 5.15)
satisfaction
1st
t(77.35) = 1.82, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.30 to 6.48)
2st
t(96.89) = 0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-2.70 to 5.73)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(72.93) = 0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.72)
2st
t(96.26) = -0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.58 to 1.77)
mhc_social
1st
t(76.76) = -0.39, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.12 to 2.09)
2st
t(96.95) = -1.20, p = 0.234, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-5.17 to 1.28)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(75.68) = 0.65, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.05 to 4.02)
2st
t(97.00) = -0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.65 to 2.77)
resilisnce
1st
t(74.26) = 0.71, p = 0.482, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.92)
2st
t(96.83) = 0.89, p = 0.376, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.43 to 3.74)
social_provision
1st
t(76.42) = 1.24, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.31)
2st
t(96.98) = 1.29, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.89)
els_value_living
1st
t(75.09) = 1.80, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.72)
2st
t(96.97) = 0.94, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.55)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(75.28) = 2.70, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.52)
2st
t(96.98) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.01)
els
1st
t(73.57) = 2.53, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.70 to 5.93)
2st
t(96.60) = 1.35, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-1.00 to 5.21)
social_connect
1st
t(70.78) = -0.79, p = 0.432, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.18 to 2.67)
2st
t(93.83) = -0.71, p = 0.481, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-6.82 to 3.24)
shs_agency
1st
t(73.92) = 1.14, p = 0.259, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.72)
2st
t(96.73) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-1.16 to 4.50)
shs_pathway
1st
t(71.62) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.87)
2st
t(95.07) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.60)
shs
1st
t(71.76) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.70 to 6.35)
2st
t(95.24) = 0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-2.48 to 6.81)
esteem
1st
t(96.36) = -0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.42)
2st
t(96.85) = -0.89, p = 0.373, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.38 to 0.52)
mlq_search
1st
t(82.34) = 0.07, p = 0.947, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.73)
2st
t(96.06) = 0.05, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.24)
mlq_presence
1st
t(79.62) = 0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.83 to 2.15)
2st
t(96.52) = 0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.28 to 2.80)
mlq
1st
t(80.37) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-3.12 to 3.56)
2st
t(96.38) = 0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.98 to 4.60)
empower
1st
t(73.77) = 0.96, p = 0.340, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.01 to 2.89)
2st
t(96.68) = -0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.41 to 2.24)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(87.58) = 1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.90)
2st
t(95.70) = -0.10, p = 0.922, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.62)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(74.74) = -2.58, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-3.57 to -0.46)
2st
t(96.93) = -0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.40 to 1.35)
sss_affective
1st
t(71.95) = -1.44, p = 0.155, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.51)
2st
t(95.44) = -2.07, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 1.32, 95% CI (-4.30 to -0.09)
sss_behavior
1st
t(73.85) = -1.83, p = 0.072, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.57 to 0.16)
2st
t(96.71) = -2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-4.57 to -0.13)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(71.33) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.03)
2st
t(94.69) = -2.35, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.55, 95% CI (-4.86 to -0.41)
sss
1st
t(70.72) = -1.51, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-9.13 to 1.26)
2st
t(93.72) = -2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.67, 95% CI (-13.17 to -1.36)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(46.81) = 1.17, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.02)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(42.88) = 0.69, p = 0.986, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.73)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(37.26) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.31)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(36.24) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.48)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(37.33) = 1.00, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.74)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(35.46) = 2.28, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.82)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(41.73) = 1.58, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.78)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(34.01) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.14 to 1.64)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(34.85) = -1.96, p = 0.115, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.04)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(35.81) = -0.71, p = 0.970, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.57 to 1.24)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(37.84) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.46 to 1.79)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(35.68) = -1.02, p = 0.628, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.59)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(37.55) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.21 to 1.75)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(37.01) = -1.11, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.00)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(36.32) = 0.90, p = 0.744, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.14)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(37.38) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.87)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(36.72) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.10)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(36.81) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.27)
els
1st vs 2st
t(35.98) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.03)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(34.66) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.31 to 2.64)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(36.15) = 0.80, p = 0.859, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.23)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(35.05) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.97)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(35.12) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.92 to 2.90)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(52.35) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.01)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(40.47) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.34)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(39.01) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.58 to 1.73)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(39.41) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.93 to 2.75)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(36.08) = -1.12, p = 0.537, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.58)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(43.62) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.07)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(36.55) = 1.04, p = 0.607, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.65)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(35.21) = -1.55, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.26)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(36.12) = -1.10, p = 0.560, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.58)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(34.92) = -1.39, p = 0.349, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.36)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(34.63) = -1.60, p = 0.236, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.17 to 0.61)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(49.74) = 0.93, p = 0.718, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.98)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(44.98) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.46 to 1.25)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(38.22) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.39)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(37.00) = -2.42, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-1.53 to -0.14)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(38.29) = -1.51, p = 0.278, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.31)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(36.07) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.18)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(43.58) = -0.72, p = 0.954, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.68)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(34.36) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.05 to 2.01)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(35.35) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.87 to 1.02)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(36.49) = -1.46, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-3.46 to 0.56)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(38.91) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.03 to 3.51)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(36.33) = 1.10, p = 0.560, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.93)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(38.55) = 1.16, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.29)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(37.91) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.05)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(37.09) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.83)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(38.35) = -0.81, p = 0.848, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.57 to 0.68)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(37.57) = 1.04, p = 0.613, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.63)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(37.68) = 1.84, p = 0.147, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.16)
els
1st vs 2st
t(36.69) = 1.66, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.33 to 3.34)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(35.12) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.41 to 2.82)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(36.89) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.01)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(35.59) = 0.69, p = 0.986, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.60)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(35.67) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.89 to 3.20)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(56.40) = 0.99, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.22)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(42.07) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.42)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(40.30) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.73)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(40.78) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-3.16 to 2.81)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(36.80) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.68)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(45.88) = 0.85, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.86)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(37.37) = -1.64, p = 0.219, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-2.09 to 0.22)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(35.77) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.21)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(36.85) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.29)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(35.43) = 1.61, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.14)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(35.09) = 0.70, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.01 to 4.10)
Plot
